Yeah, I don't do winter worth a sh*t.....

I get really tired of the same old arguements.....that and I bite the blood out of my tounge (fingers?) when I go over to tthe LS1.com AAG and see the retards that reside over there )Truth is, I just like reading Pacerx's ownage of that moron RichS screaming liberalism...LOL! )

 

ZWILD1, I gotcha, but the memories of different people with different levels of exposure take 2 different directions. People should look at it this way, the GTO name has stood the test of time for a reason. It earned its place in Muscle Car history.....When ever I hear someone talk of the first time a car "sucked them back into their seats!", the name GTO usually comes up first, it was the ORIGINAL TORQUER!...
Logically, if it was just a mediocre grocery getter with a big engine, it wouldn't have endeared itself to so many people, true?

I read in Motor Trend where it went like 13.62 @ 104,(I believe?) on the same article the WRX went 13.57 and the EVO went 13.50 even...But "As in Days of Olde", most of that is due to tires that are incapable of getting the power to the ground!...
I can't wait for a test with some DR's or Slicks!...

 

Good car and I'm happy it's here.

Styling could be a bit more involved, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I am OK with it for the most part....

I am considering a purchase... so I must like it enough.

 

GM should have acted exactly as they did getting the car here in the time allotted.

It is an awesome car. Oz makes great cars - better than ours in many instances.

All of the stir, hype, and negativity could have been avoided if they had just called it the Pontiac Monaro.

 

While this statement is undoubtedly true.... why not use the GTO name?

The timing was right for the anniversary... all the parts are there that add up to a GTO... it's just the styling, which is subjective anyway...


This car definately got more attention by using the GTO name, so I think it was an accebtible move on Pobtiac's part. It's not liek they slapped the GTO name on a Grand Am (which was actually talked about seriosuly for quite a while, btw...)

 

Like "Car and Driver" TV, I do applaud GM for making this entry…thank God they are trying. And like others who have mentioned here; we may see great things with this car in a couple of years.

But, I too wonder why GM killed the Z28/TransAm; cars that looked much better, handled better, went faster and cost less and then came out with this.

I doubt that many who would have bought a Z28/TransAM are the same who would buy a new GTO but GM's logic escapes me so perhaps it's an apples to oranges comparison but for my money, there are several vehicles in the $35-$40K price range that I'd rather have.

Maybe I just need to go build an AC Cobra 427 replica and stop trying to figure GM out!!!

 

Killing the old car wasn't the problem.... after a 10 year run, it was time ofr it to go... the inexcusable part was that a new car was not ready to go to replace it.

 

Add to that the fact that it would not have met federal crash standards. It's been stated here that the A-pillar was too close to the driver's head to pass the new standards. A regisign of the entire roof structure would have been a lot of money to throw at an outdated and slow selling platform.

There were no other cars on the platform to support it as well. It would be the last single purpose platform. Heck, even the famed Y-body corvette is now platform sharing.

The future of the Quebec plant was tied to the car. GM wanted to get rid of a plant that's sole purpose was building an outdated, slow selling, single purpose platform. The plant itself was operating WAAY below capacity. Wasted money. It seems the contract with the plant stated that production of Camaro/Firebird could not be moved to another plant if it resulted in the plant closing. This restriction is in place for 3 years.

1. GM ignored the car for too long in the very fickle coupe market.

2. By the time the newer management took over and/or someone took notice of the problem it was too late. They backed themselves in a corner and made the right business decision.

 

This is for those that think the new GTO is a sham. The fact is the original GTO was a "slapped together" Tempest. Don't make me pull out the pictures again. And while the '68 was an improvement, the fact is that people complained almost as loudly when it came out. Many comments like "That's not a GTO!!" were aimed at that car as well!

Here's some performance stats. I should keep this post saved for future reference. Keep in mind that I understand that performance was limited to the tire tech of the day. Still, that was the time that the original GTO lived in. Even today's GTO is limited by it's stock tires.

Here are some times for some classic GTO's. Courtesy of Musclecarclub.com. We'll look at the hottest engines of each year.


1964 Tempest GTO (389 V8 (3x2) 348 gross hp @ 4900 rpm, 428 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm):
389/348: 0-60 in 6.6 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.8 sec @ 95 mph

1967 GTO (400 V8 Ram Air 360 gross hp @ 5100 rpm, 438 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm):
400/335: NA. 400/360 HO: 0-60 in 6.6 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.66 sec @ 99mph. 400/360 Ram Air: NA.

1970 GTO (455 V8 360 gross hp @ 4300 rpm, 500 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm.):
400/366 Ram Air III: 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.7 sec @ 98mph.

1972 GTO (455 V8 HO 300 net hp @ 4000 rpm, 415 lb-ft @ 3200rpm):
455/300: 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds @ 95.2 mph.

1974 GTO (350 V8 200 net hp):
0-60 in 7.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 15.72 seconds @ 88 mph.

2004 GTO 5.7L LS1 350 net HP):
Magazine...........Issue...........0 - 60 ........................1/4 mi ................. Lat. G's
Car and Driver ..12/03 ...........5.3 seconds ...........14.0 @ 102 mph .......0.88
Road & Track ...12/03 ............5.3 ........................13.8 @ 103.8 mph .....0.81
Motor Trend .....12/03 ...........5.3 ........................13.62 @ 104.8 mph ....0.80

 

Please don't get me wrong, I don't think the new GTO is a sham.

I understand the performance number comparrison (especially since I've lived through them...I well remember the first GTO even though I wasn't old enough to buy one at the time).

The current GTO is an Ok car as far as it goes...but Ok isn't good enough in today's world. The original GTO defined the muscle car...the current GTO is competing against many similar cars that perform as well or better for about the same money...it doesn't define anything special.

I also understand the "business/managment" reaonss (at least those the general public can know) as to why the F body was killed off.

My points are simply that 1) the GTO doesn't compare favoarbily with the Z28/TransAm which leave very little for a GM loyalist to buy and 2) the new GTO inspires no passion in me to go out and buy it.

I hope it does well...I hope future years see great improvements...but I'm certainly not going to rush out and buy this year's version.

Just my opinion.

 

I like the new GTO.. but with some improvements, I think instead of being on the fence of getting one, I'd be actively looking at one..

Two changes I'd like to see.. Wider more agressive rubber (like 275's on all corners), and aluminum suspension pieces to replace the heavy and steel cast iron parts. (how much weight can be saved there? )

The exterior could maybe be worked on a bit.. maybe...

If GM can do that without increasing the price next year, I think it'll fair much better. Those two changes itself would probably be enough to tip the raw performance # enough to undeniably match the ls1 f-bod's..

 

Ya, the 225's are awful skinny for this car, IMO...

I'm surprised they are not 245's or so....

 

Holy cripes! It's only 225 width?!? I thought it was 245!

And those Car & Driver reviewers put down the car saying they couldn't break the backend loose!!

 

Oups. My bad.

According to Pontiac's site, it has 245's.

http://www.pontiac.com/gto/specs.jsp...=models_prices

But... why is 225's sticking in my head... maybe they changed it after some complaints?

 

Do you have snow tires?

I use 225/60 Blizzaks in the winter.